On 12/7/21 13:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> writes:
>> 07.12.2021 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm. I wonder whether using SD_BOTH behaves any differently.
>> With shutdown(MyProcPort->sock, SD_BOTH) the test failed for me on
>> iterations 1, 2, 3, 16 (just as without shutdown() at all).
>> So shutdown with the SD_SEND flag definitely behaves much better (I've
>> seen over 200 successful iterations).
> Fun. Well, I'll put in shutdown with SD_SEND for the moment,
> and we'll have to see whether we can improve further than that.
> It does sound like we may be running into OpenSSL bugs/oddities,
> not only kernel issues, so it may be impossible to do better
> on our side.
Yeah. My suspicion is that SD_BOTH is what closesocket() does if
shutdown() hasn't been previously called.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com